There has been a lot of recent discussion concerning limits and restrictions of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We need to talk about that.
Restrictions on the First Amendment aren't new. Attempts to restrict Free Speech, have largely been successful. Obscenity and Hate Speech are examples of justifiable restrictions. There have also been many, many attempts, successes, and failures to restrict "Time, Place, and Manner" of how the Freedom to Peaceably Assemble is considered.
The Supreme Court has upheld many restrictions, and has denied others as being unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has developed a tripartite categorization of public spaces where expressive activities may take place. Different First Amendment issues arise in each of the three categories of public spaces.
The three categories of public spaces identified by the Court are (1) the traditional public forum, (2) the designated public forum (which might be either “limited” or “unlimited”), and (3) the non-public forum.
Hague v CIO (1939), considers an ordinance which gave a city official the discretion to decide whether an organization seeking to hold a meeting in public spaces in the city would be allowed to do so. Whenever the official concluded that the meeting posed a risk of disturbances, he could reject the request.
The Court ruled the law void on its face. The Court said, "Streets and parks...have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public issues. Such use has, from ancient times, been part of the privileges, immunities, and liberties of citizens."
An interesting website that discusses these limitations and the cases that decided them can be found here: Exploring Constitutional Conflicts
During the Bush administration, "Free Speech Zones" were created. These are basically a small caged area that restrict protesters to a specific area (usually some ways away from the targeted protest). This is still very controversial.
The idea of restrictions on the First Amendment go back all the way to just after the First Amendment was introduced.
So many of these 'restrictions' have been placed on the First Amendment at this point (some justified, some not), we now find it nearly impossible to exercise our First Amendment Rights.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Some here at the Daily Kos like to point out that much of this is 'settled case law', and they are correct. It is settled case law. BUT, does that mean it is morally acceptable?
Does it mean that these restrictions are okay?
Governors, Mayors, and the Police have imposed "curfews", and other regulations that are now resulting in mass arrests, beatings, pain, and injury to the People.
Doctor Martin Luther King wrote a letter, while in the Birmingham City Jail on April 16, 1963, with plenty of discussion of these restrictions. Here is an excerpt from that letter:
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
"I hope you are able to face the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
Many times in the last few hundred years, these laws have been discussed and changed. Interpretation of the law and viewpoints of it change with the appointment of new Supreme Court Justices. Everything is up to interpretation.
It appears now, that we are finding that there are no public spaces that we can Occupy without some kind of restriction. I don't think the Founding Fathers would have agreed with this.
Civil Disobedience is characterized by breaking a law when the law seems to be UN-just. Laws can change. We can change them. But, we first have to point out to a large portion of the population that they are UN-just.
Please comment, add links, and let's discuss this issue. What can we change? How can we change it? Are the laws justified? Some of us advocate strict adherence to the law, some of us advocate Civil Disobedience in the face of these laws. To those whom I have had disagreements with recently in comments in some of the Diaries we read - your input is most welcome. I may disagree with you, but I would fight to the death to uphold your right to express your opinion. Speech is FREE after all.